A Safek: Rebbi Yechiel z.l. was uncertain as to whether 'Vermishaish' is subject to Chalah.

Source: Since we learned in the Mishnah that 'Someone who kneads a thick dough with the intention of dividing it into small pieces is Patur from Chalah, seeing as it not have the Shi'ur Chalah.

Source (cont.): If so, here too, with regard to Vermishaish', it sometimes happens that one places less than the Shi'ur Chalah into the pot.

Conclusion: He therefore required taking Chalah, but without reciting a B'rachah, due to the Safek.

Halachah #1: Whatever is initially spongy and ultimately becomes a dough is subject to Chalah and requires the B'rachah 'ha'Motzi', irrespective of whether it is baked in a small oven, in a large one, or in a pan without water and oil.

Source: Since we rule like Rebbi Yochanan in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 37.) ...

Source (cont.): Where Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish argue over something which is liquidy that is baked in a pan, which is synonymous with 'Techilsaso Sufganin ve'Sofo Isah'.

Source (cont.): Regarding which Resh Lakish holds that one is only Chayav if it is baked in an oven. And it is about specific case exclusively that the Mishnah rules 'Techilsaso Sufganin ve'Sofo Isah, Chayav'.

Source (cont.): Whereas Rebbi Yochanan rules that (even if it is baked in a pan) it is still subject to Chalah, since what is baked in a pan is considered dough, provided there is no liquid in the pan.

Proof: And so it says in the Yerushalmi 'Whatever has fire burning underneath it is Chayav Chalah, and one recites over it 'ha'Motzi'.

Halachah #2: Over 'Anilsish' however, one does not recite 'ha'Motzi', since it is nothing more than Guvla (a thick dough-like mass).

Halachah #2 (cont.): If however, one fixes one's meal ovr it (like one does on Purim), one recites 'ha'Motzi' over it.

Halachah #3: And whatever is spongy both in the beginning and at the end (due to the oil that one adds), which is called 'Bunaish', is Patur from Chalah.

Halachah: Likewise 'Nilash' - if one eats it in the form of a fixed meal, one recites over it 'ha'Motzi'.

Halachah (cont.): In the same vein, the Ram gave instructions on Purim, when they fixed their meal over it, to first recite 'ha'Motzi' over bread, since he was not sure whether that was considered a fixed meal or not.

Halachah: And the same applies to beverages made from any species of fruit, excep for wine and oil ...

Source: As we say with regard to Orlah.

Refuted Opinion: This precludes the B'hag, who establishes the Gemara's ruling there where he added water.

Halachah (cont.): And as for our beer, even though it may contain a k'Zayis' (of barley) 'bi'Chedei Achilas P'ras', one do recite over it 'Borei Miynei Mezonos', only 'Shehakol' ...

Reason #1: Even according to Rav and Shmu'el , who maintain that whatever contains any of the five species of grain requires the B'rachah 'Borei Miynei Mezonos', that is not applicable here, since the beer does not contain the actual barley, only its taste.

Reason #2: And besides, it has a higher level, in that one can make bread with it.

Reason #3: Moreover, over beverages one recites 'Shehakol'.

Machlokes: Rebbi and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah dispute this - with regard to 'Someone who adds water to bran ...

Clarification: And it is talking about a more liquid substance, since the Gemara uses the Lashon 'Bochshin', rather than one of 'Gibul' ...

Source: As the Gemara extrapolates there (Perek Mi she'Hichshich, Daf 155:).

Clarification: He holds that since whatever is predominantly meant as a cure, and is not generally manufactured as a food, is forbidden on Shabbos.

Clarification: Because it implies that, since it mentions 'All kinds of food' (with a stress on the word 'all'), whatever is meant predominantly as a cure, is permitted, since it is fit to eat.

Explanation: The Gemara concludes that 'Rav and Shmu'el are needed ...

Explanation (cont.): Since, whereas the Mishnah permits on Shabbos whatever is edible, even though it is meant predominantly as a cure ...

Conclusion: Rav and Shmuel come to teach us not to think that if something is predominantly meant as a cure, one does not recite a B'rachah over it at all. They therefore rule that, since one derives benefit from it, it requires a B'rachah.

Conclusion (cont.): Nevertheless, one recites only 'Shehakol, since (as Tosfos explained earlier) it is not made to eat only to drink.

Conclusion (cont.): That being the case, anything that contains the five species of grain, but is not made to eat only to drink - such as beer and the likes, one recites over it 'Shehakol'.

Similar Ruling: And this conforms with the ruling of the B'hag, who cites the Halachah 'that over a thick Shesisa (a food prepared with flour) one recites 'Borei Miynei Mezonos', whereas if it is liquidy, one recites 'Shehakol'.

Conclusion: And even if it has been manufactured as a cure, if one derives benefit from it, one must recite a B'rachah.

Implied Question: Even though they all agree that 'ha'Motzi' refers to the past.

Answer: The Yerushalmi explains that the reason for this ruling is in order is to avoid mixing the letters - such as 'ha'Olam' ... 'Motzi'.

Implied Question: Even though we have the same problem with the words 'Lechem' ... 'min' ...

Answer: That is different, since those two words are based on the Pasuk in Tehilim (104) "Matzmi'ach Chatzir la'Beheimah ve'Eisev la'Avodas ha'Adam, Lehotzi Lechem ... min* ha'Aretz".

Halachah: Therefore (due to that Pasuk) one should place one's ten fingers of both hands on the bread (when reciting the B'rachah of ha'Motzi), corresponding to the ten words that it comprises.

Clarification: Vegetables are not literally comparable to bread since bread has undergone and improvement (as a result of cooking) while there are vegetables that do not undergo improvement;

Clarification (cont.): What the Gemara therefore means is that just as by bread, cooking does not detract from the Berachah, so too vegetables retain their status, since they do not deteriorate through cooking.

Question: Is it not clear for all to see that cooking improves them?

Answer: That is only because the meat and the salt that have been added.

Halachah #1: It seems that any food that is as tasty when it is cooked as when it is raw, such as various species of legumes and apples, retain their regular B'rachah, seeing as taste just as good.

Halachah (cont.): And it is for this reason that one recites over boiled wine 'Borei P'ri ha'Gafen', since wine that has been boiled tastes just as good as when it has not.

Halachah #2: Whereas pumpkin, beetroots and cabbage and suchlike, which taste better cooked than raw, one recites over them raw 'Shehakol', and 'Borei Pe'ri ha'Adamah' when they have been cooked.

Halachah #2 (cont.): Similarly, over those chestnuts and quinces, which are not as good when they are raw as when they are cooked, one recites 'Shehakol when they are raw, and 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz' when they have been cooked.

Halachah #3: However tos chestnuts (known as 'Lumibradash') one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz' even when one eats them raw.

Halachah #4: And whatever spoils when it is cooked, such as garlic and leek and suchlike, require 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah' when they are raw, and 'Shehakol' once they have been cooked. This is the opinion of Rabeinu Yehudah.

Alternative Ruling: The Rif however, rules that over cooked vegetables that have deteriorated through cooking, one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Adamah', in accordance with the opinion of Rav Nachman, who says that 'over Shelakos one recites "Borei P'ri ha'Adamah" '.

Reason: Since Rebbi Chiya bar Aba holds like him.

Reason (cont.): And Rebbi Chiya bar Aba, is speaking about all Shelakos, even those that deteriorate through cooking ...

Proof: Since the Gemara cites a Machlokes between Rebi Chiya bar Aba and Rebbi Binyamin bar Yefes on this point.

Halachah: Over a nut that is fried in honey one recites 'Borei P'ri ha'Eitz' ...

Reason: Since the main thing is the nut.

Clarification: Not specifically 'all' his learning ...

Clarification (cont.): But all that he had learned during the past thirty days, he would revis before him on the thirty-first.

Clarification: And salted is akin to boiling.